More social engineering: passport applications

passportVia Fox News:

‘Mother,’ ‘Father’ Changing to ‘Parent One,’ ‘Parent Two’ on Passport Applications

By Todd Starnes
Published January 07, 2011

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. “They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’”

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn’t note if it was for child applications only.

The State Department said the new passport applications, not yet available to the public, will be available online soon.

Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness.

“We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago,” she said.

Gay rights groups are applauding the decision.

[...]

Read more there.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The future and our choices and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to More social engineering: passport applications

  1. Legisperitus says:

    Great. Wasn’t it the Coneheads who had “parental units”?

  2. Legisperitus says:

    On second thought, this is more like Thing 1 and Thing 2.

  3. TNCath says:

    One step closer towards recognizing same sex marriage.

  4. Legisperitus–exactly. Only I don’t think Dr. Seuss meant for folks to take it like that…

  5. Maria says:

    This is very sad and horrible.

    Imagine calling Our Lady, Parent 2 instead of Mother.

    Or ‘Our Parent 1′ in Heaven,
    Hallowed be Thy Name……

    I thank God that at least there is some sanity, decency and moral family values left, in the Holy Catholic Church.

    I would be lost without my Faith.

  6. Christina says:

    Bleargh. Surely they’re offending more people by doing it this way? Which parent is the less essential “Parent 2?” Why are they forcing us to create a hierarchy over this? I’m certain this insistence on “1″ and “2″ will force mothers into seemingly secondary role more often than not. Surely they foresee this? Patriarchal misogynists.

  7. JohnE says:

    I was thinking the same thing Christina. Perhaps they should list Parent 2 first, followed by Parent 1. Or better yet, use some sort of venticular material so that the names are swapped depending on how it is tilted. Not sure what to do when they start adding “Parent 3″ though.

  8. JohnE says:

    venticular –> lenticular

  9. Andrew says:

    Of the some 7 billion presently living and the countless souls that preceded us there is NOT ONE who hasn’t been born of the union of one male and one female. Not excluding those who have been conceived in a (sad to say) dish. There is just no other way that any human has ever come to exist but through the agency of one male and one female. Yet, there are some who in their madness try to challenge this.

  10. SonofMonica says:

    If my (soon-to-be-born) child ever requires a passport, I will be marking through “Parent 1″ on the application and replacing it with “Father.” I think it’s what a real Parent 1 father would do. If our child is a boy, our relationship will not be parent-child, but father-son; if a girl, father-daughter. There is a difference. I am personally thankful that God is my father, and not just my “parent.” I hope to instill the same thankfulness in my son or daughter.

  11. SonofMonica says:

    ^^ whoops, meant that to read “will not merely be parent-child….”

  12. mdinan says:

    Andrew,

    Our Lord was fully human and was made incarnate outside the traditional means…so, you know…there’s ONE hole in your argument :P

  13. TJerome says:

    More evidence that the President and his team are left-wing loons!

  14. mike cliffson says:

    Be warned.They’ve not only done this already in Spain, you can’t complain(it’s been tried) when they do it in school, you CAN however if they use the gender-linked words for mother and father.Thin end of the wedge.

  15. Andrew says:

    mdinan:

    Andrew,
    Our Lord was fully human and was made incarnate outside the traditional means…so, you know…there’s ONE hole in your argument :P

    The Blessed Mother was born of her parents. If her birth did not take place Our Lord could not have been born of Her: therefore my argument stands.

  16. Animadversor says:

    Sorry, Andrew, I have to agree with mdinan. You said

    Of the some 7 billion presently living and the countless souls that preceded us there is NOT ONE who hasn’t been born of the union of one male and one female.

    The normal acceptation of “union of one male and one female” when referring to the generation of a human being is “sexual congress of one male and one female”; therefore, you are saying that Our Lord was born of the sexual congress of Saints Joachim and Anna. One can say that Our Lord descends from Someone who was born of a “union of one male and one female,” but that is not the same as saying He was born of that union.

    Even I were to admit your argument in the instant case, how would you account for our first parents, Adam and Eve?

    I understand that by “countless” you meant “very, very many,” and I do not fault your use of that word, but I should like to use it as the opportunity to reflect that Our Creator knows exactly how many there are, have been, and will be, and not simply as instances of humanity, but so intimately that he does not need a name to distinguish between one and another of us. A comforting, and an awful, thought.

  17. isnowhere says:

    Animadversor, and mdinan:

    Really… this is a detail worth the debate? Andrew was right… people are born from a man and a woman. Plain and simple. Don’t use the Incarnation, or our first father and mother as a way to trivialize or distract from this simple fact just because it creates some sort of “hole.”

  18. Margo says:

    I saw this on Fox News. Just another example of the traditional family structure falling apart.

  19. Andrew says:

    Animadversor:

    The normal acceptation of “union of one male and one female” when referring to the generation of a human being is “sexual congress of one male and one female” …

    It is hard to say anything these days, even the most obvious, because little by little, with all sorts of crazy arguments, even the fact that folks are born of dad and mom becomes doubtful. Obviously I was not talking about the action of the Creator, but the normal course of nature. And my argument is simple, clear and true.

  20. PeterK says:

    classic government move. change something that only applies to a very small percentage of the population. How many homosexual couples are really raising children? I suspect not even 1% . classic government solution looking for a problem

  21. Karen G. says:

    So how are parents supposed to determine which parent they are when filling out such an application?
    If anything, I think these “improvements” cause more problems than anything.

  22. avecrux says:

    I gave birth to my first child in England almost 17 years ago and this was the way it was done by the NHS hospital back then – although I think it may have been “partner 1″ and “partner 2″. It was very noticeable to me at the time…

  23. EXCHIEF says:

    Great—another thing politicians and their appointees have done which would not meet with the approval of the majority of voters.

  24. medievalist says:

    Sadly, nothing new. The civil version of my marriage certificate (a Canadian province) has ‘Spouse 1′ and ‘Spouse 2′ or something to that effect.

  25. cweaver says:

    Is there a reason we should expect the US State Department to be a pillar of family values in the culture wars? It seems like this change perfectly conforms to the new reality. When my wife and I applied for my son’s passport several months ago I didn’t feel the form was supporting the old-fashioned family, and conversely I don’t feel the new form destroys it. It’s just a form!

    There’s no conspiracy, here: just a government bureaucracy finding the simplest language to deliver a necessary service to all citizens. Am I the only reader of this blog who doesn’t feel threatened by this?

    Is anyone really suggesting that egg or sperm donors should be consulted in these matters; or that doing so would further the spread of Christian values?

    This probably just makes things easier for the postal clerks. Perhaps it could even speed up the process, which has always been dreadfully slow.

  26. Panterina says:

    “A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made…”.

    “Improvements”??? What improvements?

  27. cyejbv says:

    EXCHIEF says “Great—another thing politicians and their appointees have done which would not meet with the approval of the majority of voters” which I think is true; but what the temporal governmental powers that be know is this: they don’t need approval, because first people tolerate… then they accept… then they embrace. It’s never all at once. This is their attempt at ‘brick by brick’.

  28. JPManning says:

    You’re all right and the government is right too. We need to use Father and Mother but we also need the numbers: Father 1, Father 2, Mother 1, Mother 2. How else can we affirm the reality of Elton John’s child’s situation?

  29. Jack Hughes says:

    I’m really tempted to REALLY rant on this but I suspect that my lack of charity would result in Father checking everything that I post again.

  30. JPManning, I agree, although I was thinking of children of divorced and remarried parents, where the mother and father have joint custody and step-parents want to be included.

    Is anyone really suggesting that egg or sperm donors should be consulted in these matters; or that doing so would further the spread of Christian values?

    No, but I imagine that can already be handled by leaving the field for “father” blank when filing the form. And what do women do if they don’t know which partner is the father?

  31. Edward C. says:

    While disturbing that anything besides “mother” and “father” should be thought necessary, the change will actually maintain those titles, while adding “parent 1,” etc. Supposedly, Clinton didn’t know “mother” and “father” were being dropped. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/08/AR2011010804439.html

    But goodness, now which parent should be parent 1? Aren’t we opening the door to sex discrimination? ;)

  32. Centristian says:

    Cweaver:

    “Is there a reason we should expect the US State Department to be a pillar of family values in the culture wars? It seems like this change perfectly conforms to the new reality. When my wife and I applied for my son’s passport several months ago I didn’t feel the form was supporting the old-fashioned family, and conversely I don’t feel the new form destroys it. It’s just a form!

    There’s no conspiracy, here: just a government bureaucracy finding the simplest language to deliver a necessary service to all citizens. Am I the only reader of this blog who doesn’t feel threatened by this?”

    You are not alone.

  33. Laura R. says:

    I’ve just seen an update on this: the State Department has backed down.

    Facing a backlash from conservative groups, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has ordered changes to a proposal to remove the terms “mother” and “father” from records of overseas births.

    “With Secretary Clinton’s input, we will be revising the form to retain the existing designation of mother and father, in addition to the designation of parent,” said Rosemary Macray, a spokeswoman for the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.

    Read more here: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/01/state_departmen.html

  34. Katherine says:

    In my day (now out of fashion), adoptive children were rarely told they were not biological children of their parents. Now, this is no secret.

    So let’s go back to an even older custom. We have a biological father and mother. If someone else is raising you, let’s reintroduce the perfectly fine term “Guardian(s)” with the child being a “ward.”